Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The question before the court really boils down to "reasonablness." Is the effective blanket prohibition against law abiding citizens in Chicago a "reasonable" exercise of local authority in light of the court's finding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and thus holds sway over all localities? Since DC's ban is dust now, I'm thinking that Chicago's is on the way out. It has not been shown to do anything to prevent lawbreakers from disregarding the law against possessing handguns, and that, to me, is a strong argument that the Chicago ban is NOT reasonable.

in light of the court's finding that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and thus holds sway over all localities

My understanding is that they haven't got to this point. They've decided this is the case with the federal government, but haven't made that determination WRT the states. They can't just cite the Heller decision for this case, because D.C. isn't a state. They'd also have to claim it falls under one of the clauses in the 14th Amendment.

I agree 100% with that. But what if the gun ban is really to give people an illusion of security? What then?

Regardless of my views on gun control, I'd like to briefly address this point.

Remember: an illusion of security is just that: an illusion. I can't speak for everyone, but I would rather know precisely what situation I was in, rather than be coddled with a fairy tale about how "safe" I am.

Well, I think the whole point is that criminals don't obey laws, no matter what the law. As I pointed out above, the homeowner's were killed, which is against the law. Breaking and entering is against the law. The list goes on. Laws are not enacted to prevent crime. They are enacted to help enforce it and set guidelines for punishment. That's why there are federal, state, and local laws governing different levels of crime. Carjacking is now a federal crime and this carries stiffer punishment that say, drinking in public. Yet people still carjack and drink in public.

If states are allowed to explicity ban guns, then where does the precedent end? Just look at the gun related violence in places where guns are banned... New York, DC, Chicago...

I don't trust that at all. You see where the Congress just ruled that Acorn was ENTITLED to government funding and that it was unconsitutional to stop funding them? So giving mine and your money to an organization like Acorn is okay, when clearly they are a corrupt organization? Sorry.

I don't trust that at all. You see where the Congress just ruled that Acorn was ENTITLED to government funding and that it was unconsitutional to stop funding them? So giving mine and your money to an organization like Acorn is okay, when clearly they are a corrupt organization? Sorry.

I think you mean that a court ruled that. And they are right. It's a completely separate issue from whether or not Acorn is corrupt. It's another due process issue.

It was the intent of the Founding Fathers for this to be a states' right. There wasn't even a question of due process until the Civil War. Once that mechanism was in place, it's remained a state right for 140 years.

I agree 100% with that. But what if the gun ban is really to give people an illusion of security? What then?

That's what all gun bans are for -- so the politicians can say that they're "doing something" when really, they aren't.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if Roe v. Wade can tell the states that they have to conform to Federal standards, why can't last year's decision on DC's handgun ban? I mean, sure it was for a federal district, but so what? Lots of other stuff gets forced on the states, so why not this? Is there a double standard?

It was the intent of the Founding Fathers for this to be a states' right. There wasn't even a question of due process until the Civil War. Once that mechanism was in place, it's remained a state right for 140 years.

The intent of the founders is nice to consider, but fundamentally irrelevant. It's "remained a state right" only because SCOTUS has not taken up a case where they have had to apply to the 2nd Amendment the clear precedent established by previous interpretations of the Incorporation Clause. The Court likes to move on these things incrementally. I predict that this Chicago case will be the turning point.

You mean it's NOT reasonable that I had to get a gun license just to own a tazer in my home ?

I think it's reasonable because too many stupid people think they're toys. They also don't read the directions on proper handling of a tazer, which can make them as deadly as a gun.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

So you say that I could intentionally use a Tazer to be as deadly as a gun ?

I think your statement is an exaggeration.

I think you shouldn't own a taser.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

It's a conscious choice, because I do value that tasers are less deadly.

So, what's wrong with that ?

Nothing wrong with that, I think it's a great decision. I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Tasers are indeed less deadly than a guns when used properly. I just find it unsettling that you're unaware or don't care how deadly tasers can be. They are only to be fired at the torso or below; using a taser at the chest or head can and does kill people. This is outlined specifically in training.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

I don't trust that at all. You see where the Congress just ruled that Acorn was ENTITLED to government funding and that it was unconsitutional to stop funding them? So giving mine and your money to an organization like Acorn is okay, when clearly they are a corrupt organization? Sorry.

Maybe because ACORN was cleared of any criminal acts after watching the unedited version of the James O'Keefe video?

The video on youtube was dubbed over and highly edited to fit an agenda. Even the pimp costume was fake and was put in after taping of the ACORN employees.

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

.....

"Acorn is gratified that the DA has concluded something we knew all along," ACORN lawyer Arthur Schwartz said, adding it was "unfortunate" the O'Keefe and Giles used "subterfuge to convince congress and the media to vilify an organization that didn't deserve it."

Here's hoping to 20 years of jail time for James O'Keefe for illegal taping, invasion of privacy, false accusation, falsifying evidence, and illegal wiretapping.

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.

I just find it unsettling that you're unaware or don't care how deadly tasers can be. They are only to be fired at the torso or below; using a taser at the chest or head can and does kill people. This is outlined specifically in training.

How do you reach the conclusion that I'm unaware of that ?

Fact is, tasers kill less people than guns in % of times being used.

And when it comes to "right" use, I'm gonna do my best when someone brakes into my home to use the taser correctly. My tasers have a laser guide, so I'm trying as much as I can.

It's unreasonable to assume they lacked the foresight to assume guns would continue to be developed.

That's like saying it would be unreasonable for them to not have the foresight to predict the abacus would develop into a computer. What seems commonplace for us now was unfathomable before the industrial revolution. A carbine gas powered assault weapon that can pierce concrete walls is in no way what 'the right to bear arms' had in mind, I assure you.

Want a gun, get a rifle or shotgun....Want to fire automatic weapons, join the goddamn army.

That's like saying it would be unreasonable for them to not have the foresight to predict the abacus would develop into a computer. What seems commonplace for us now was unfathomable before the industrial revolution. A carbine gas powered assault weapon that can pierce concrete walls is in no way what 'the right to bear arms' had in mind, I assure you.

Want a gun, get a rifle or shotgun....Want to fire automatic weapons, join the goddamn army.

It's difficult to know what they would have thought about automatic weapons, but the fact is that the weapons they did have in mind were actually the state of the art at the time, so there is not necessarily any indication that they would have objected to private citizens owning assault weapons. They might have easily said that muskets and cannon could be regulated, but that bows, swords and knives could not -- but of course they didn't.

This is not to say that I believe that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional. I just think that appealing to the sense that the authors of the Second Amendment couldn't possibly have foreseen dramatically more lethal weapons is a pointless exercise.

You accused me of exaggerating. I apologize if I had the wrong impression.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

Want a gun, get a rifle or shotgun....Want to fire automatic weapons, join the goddamn army.

Or a gun club. Nothing wrong with sport, but I think the laws need to reflect that. Riding around in the back of a pickup with assault rifles is not responsible; I learned that on Top Gear.

"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts

The only people here who are excited to see the ban go are the people in the ghetto. The city isn't going to allow any gun clubs within city limits (although there was a really nice one downtown on the lake when I was a kid) even if the ban is over turned so most people of any means in the city wouldn't have much use for a hand gun anyway.
The people who hunt or use guns for recreational uses have second residences or alternatives outside the city or Cook Co.

From a realistic standpoint it doesn't really make a large difference since here's no shortage of hand guns on the South and West sides of the city now.

The intent of the founders is nice to consider, but fundamentally irrelevant.

I felt it relevant insofar as to establish the length of the precedent.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

It's "remained a state right" only because SCOTUS has not taken up a case where they have had to apply to the 2nd Amendment the clear precedent established by previous interpretations of the Incorporation Clause. The Court likes to move on these things incrementally. I predict that this Chicago case will be the turning point.

Not an unreasonable argument or prediction. Consider me somewhat pushed.

All I'm saying is that the founding fathers had muzzle loading rifles, and probably would never intend for fully automatic Tec-9s to be sold to civilians.

These conclusions are always made in the wrong context.

The founding fathers did not include a right to bear arms for mere personal protection, hunting, or sport. They felt that weapons were needed to protect the people from government tyranny. Seems to me that's pretty difficult or impossible with severe restrictions on the types of weapons people can own.

Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.

The founding fathers did not include a right to bear arms for mere personal protection, hunting, or sport. They felt that weapons were needed to protect the people from government tyranny. Seems to me that's pretty difficult or impossible with severe restrictions on the types of weapons people can own.

Amen, brother. I think this reveals the heart of the issue, and the real debate that everyone wishes they could have but won't: Were the founding fathers right, and does their decision still make sense today? Remember: the definition of "citizen" has changed drastically since the American Revolution.

So that's what the discussion boils down to: In modern America, do the benefits and security of (virtually) unrestricted gun ownership by citizens outweigh the inherent risks and dangers?

The people who hunt or use guns for recreational uses have second residences or alternatives outside the city or Cook Co.

From a realistic standpoint it doesn't really make a large difference since here's no shortage of hand guns on the South and West sides of the city now.

So does anyone but me think this is a very telling point? The rich folks evade the law simply by being able to afford a second residence, while the people who are most likely to be victimized by an armed criminal in their homes cannot afford to do so. Hmmm. That ban sort of makes sense now, doesn't it? At least from the point of view of the wealthy.

The founding fathers did not include a right to bear arms for mere personal protection, hunting, or sport. They felt that weapons were needed to protect the people from government tyranny. Seems to me that's pretty difficult or impossible with severe restrictions on the types of weapons people can own.

I don't disagree with this in principle, but we've already drawn a line. Let me just run on down to the nuclear weapons store and pick up some...oh, wait...

So does anyone but me think this is a very telling point? The rich folks evade the law simply by being able to afford a second residence, while the people who are most likely to be victimized by an armed criminal in their homes cannot afford to do so. Hmmm. That ban sort of makes sense now, doesn't it? At least from the point of view of the wealthy.

Are you saying the wealthy people of Chicago are using the guns they keep in their second residences to victimize the non-wealthy in their homes?

If the Incorporation Clause is going to have any meaning then the SCOTUS has to rule that state cannot outlaw possession of firearms. Otherwise, they would be, in essence, stating that the concept of Incorporation, as it relates to the states, applies only to certain parts of the Constitution and not to the Constitution as a whole.

For me personally I think the federal- or state-level governments should NOT be able to ban* possession of firearms. However, I think the federal- and state-level governments should be able to restrict/regulate possession of firearms for both type and quantity such that possession of firearms could be regulated on a state by state basis. And so that individual states could have their own methods and/or procedures for buying, owning, using firearms.
*Except in rare circumstances like mental incapacity or conviction for a serious (felony-level) crime.

In my ideal world, no state would be able to ban possession of guns altogether--this would run afoul of the Second Amendment via the Incorporation Clause--but some states could decide to ban certain types of firearms (assault rifles, pistols larger than a certain caliber, fully automatic weapons) or limit possession of the total number of firearms owned by one individual.

(This approach seems doable to me as the Constitution, and the SCOTUS, doesn't say there can be no restriction on firearm ownership, it just says there can be no ban on firearm ownership.)

One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.

Amen, brother. I think this reveals the heart of the issue, and the real debate that everyone wishes they could have but won't: Were the founding fathers right, and does their decision still make sense today? Remember: the definition of "citizen" has changed drastically since the American Revolution.

So that's what the discussion boils down to: In modern America, do the benefits and security of (virtually) unrestricted gun ownership by citizens outweigh the inherent risks and dangers?

Most people don't see the possibility of the threat of real tyranny in America. I know I don't, not right now. This is why these debates always become about personal protection, hunting and sport. Tyranny, in the average Americans mind, is unthinkable and even if it were possible, there is NO way a few guns could stand up to the full force of the American army. This is the thinking anyway.

I think that this kind of thinking is dangerous. It is when we are complacent that we are at our most vulnerable. Maybe not this decade, or this lifetime, but eventually. As society lets go of the fear of tyranny and warms to the idea of bigger and more intrusive government, we become vulnerable. Like the man walking in a bad neighborhood dressed in expensive clothes, laughing and talking on a cell phone. But that's silly. Free people just don't vote themselves into oppression do they?

Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.

I think that this kind of thinking is dangerous. It is when we are complacent that we are at our most vulnerable. Maybe not this decade, or this lifetime, but eventually. As society lets go of the fear of tyranny and warms to the idea of bigger and more intrusive government, we become vulnerable. Like the man walking in a bad neighborhood dressed in expensive clothes, laughing and talking on a cell phone. But that's silly. Free people just don't vote themselves into oppression do they?

Just a point of contention, a society that "lets go of the fear of tyranny" will NOT automatically "warm to the idea of bigger and more intrusive government". Being fearful of tyranny does not mean one is in favor of small government just as not fearing tyranny makes one a fan of big government. It is quite possible to not fear tyranny and be in favor of small government or to fear tyranny and be in favor of big government.

One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.